The proponents of prohibition had believed that banning alcoholic beverages would reduce or even eliminate many social problems, particularly drunkenness, crime, mental illness, and poverty. In 1925 journalist H. L. Mencken believed the opposite to be true:[2]

Five years of Prohibition have had, at least, this one benign effect: they have completely disposed of all the favorite arguments of the Prohibitionists. None of the great boons and usufructs that were to follow the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment has come to pass. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic, but more. There is not less crime, but more. There is not less insanity, but more. The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished.

Some supporters of Prohibition, such as Rev. Charles Stelzle who wrote Why Prohibition! (1918), believed that prohibition would eventually lead to reductions in taxes, since drinking "produced half the business" for institutions supported by tax dollars such as courts, jails, hospitals, almshouses, and insane asylums.[3] In fact, alcohol consumption and the incidence of alcohol-related domestic violence were decreasing before the Eighteenth Amendment was adopted. Following the imposition of Prohibition, reformers "were dismayed to find that child neglect and violence against children actually increased during the Prohibition era."[4]

During Prohibition, people continued to produce and drink alcohol, and bootlegging helped foster a massive industry under the control of organized crime. Drinking in speakeasies became increasingly fashionable, and many mothers worried about the allure that alcohol and other illegal activities associated with bootlegging would have over their children.[5]

Prohibitionists argued that Prohibition would be more effective if enforcement were increased. However, increased efforts to enforce Prohibition simply resulted in the government spending more money, rather than less. The economic cost of Prohibition became especially pronounced during the Great Depression. According to Association Against the Prohibition Amendment (AAPA) and Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform (WONPR), an estimated $861 million was lost in federal tax revenue from untaxed liquor; $40 million was spent annually on Prohibition enforcement.[6] The AAPA also released a pamphlet claiming that $11 billion was lost in federal liquor-tax revenue and $310 million was spent on Prohibition enforcement from 1920 to 1931.[7] This lack of potential funding during a period of economic strife became a crucial part of the campaign for repeal.[8]

The repeal movement also attracted a substantial portion of women, defying the assumption that recently enfranchised female voters would automatically vote as a bloc on this issue.[9] They became pivotal in the effort to repeal, as many "had come to the painful conclusion that the destructiveness of alcohol was now embodied in Prohibition itself."[10] By then, women had become even more politically powerful due to ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in support of women's suffrage.[11] Activist Pauline Sabin argued that repeal would protect families from the corruption, violent crime, and underground drinking that resulted from Prohibition. On May 28, 1929, Sabin founded the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform (WONPR), which attracted many former Prohibitionists to its ranks.[12] By the time repeal was finally passed in 1933 the WONPR's membership was estimated at 1.5 million. Originally, Sabin was among the many women who supported the Eighteenth Amendment. Now, however, she viewed Prohibition as both hypocritical and dangerous. She recognized "the apparent decline of temperate drinking" and feared the rise of organized crime that developed around bootlegging.[13]

Additionally, Sabin worried that America's children, witnessing a blatant disregard for dry laws, would cease to recognize the sanctity of the law itself. Finally, Sabin and the WONPR took a libertarian stance that disapproved of federal involvement in a personal matter like drinking. Over time, however, the WONPR modified its argument, playing up the "moral wrongs that threatened the American home" as a result of the corruption of the Prohibition era.[5] As a women's organization during the early 20th century, adopting a political stance that centered around maternalism and home protection appealed to the widest audience and was favored over personal liberty arguments, which ultimately received little attention.

The WONPR was initially composed mainly of upper-class women. However, by the time the Twenty-first Amendment was passed, their membership included the middle and working classes. After a short start-up period, donations from members alone were enough to financially sustain the organization. By 1931, more women belonged to the WONPR than the WCTU; by 1932, the WONPR had branches in forty-one states.[14]

The WONPR supported repeal on a platform of "true" temperance, claiming that "a trend toward moderation and restraint in the use of intoxicating beverages [was] reversed by prohibition."[15] Though their causes were in direct opposition, the WONPR mirrored the advocacy techniques of the WCTU. They canvassed door-to-door, encouraged politicians on all levels to incorporate repeal into their party platform, created petitions, gave speeches and radio interviews, dispersed persuasive literature, and held chapter meetings. At times, the WONPR also worked in cooperation with other anti-prohibition groups. In 1932 the AAPA, Voluntary Committee of Lawyers, The Crusaders, the American Hotel Organization, and the WONPR formed the United Repeal Council. The United Repeal Council lobbied at both the Republican and Democratic national conventions in 1932 to integrate repeal into their respective presidential election campaigns. Ultimately, the Republicans continued to defend Prohibition. The WONPR, which initially began as a nonpartisan organization, joined with the Democratic campaign and supported Franklin Roosevelt.[16]

The number of repeal organizations and demand for repeal both increased.

The Cullen–Harrison Act, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 22, 1933, authorized the sale of 3.2 percent beer (thought to be too low an alcohol concentration to be intoxicating) and wine, which allowed the first legal beer sales since the beginning of Prohibition on January 16, 1920.[18] In 1933 state conventions ratified the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed Prohibition. The Amendment was fully ratified on December 5, 1933. Federal laws enforcing Prohibition were then repealed.[19]

Following repeal some states continued prohibition within their own jurisdictions. Almost two-thirds of the states adopted some form of local option which enabled residents in political subdivisions to vote for or against local prohibition. For a time, 38 percent of Americans lived in areas with Prohibition.[1] By 1966, however, all states had repealed their statewide prohibition laws, with Mississippi the last state to do so.[19]